On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:48 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Richard Fontana scripsit:
>> The OSI should have some sort of process for delisting
>> formerly-approved licenses for reasons of failing to actually meet the
>> Open Source Definition (or some future replacement of it). That is to
>> say, the OSI should be willing to admit that it made a mistake, much
>> as a court (while it might ordinarily apply the policy of stare
>> decisis) will in certain cases overrule its prior decisions. Clearly
>> for policy reasons such actions should be exceptional rather than
>> common, and perhaps should be limited to certain licenses that were
>> approved during a particular period in the OSI's existence (I would
>> guess 2000-2005?).
> Fine in principle, but do you actually have examples of such licenses that
> contravene the OSD?  (About future revisions, of course, nothing can be said.)

At the time it was approved, there was debate about whether section 14
of http://www.opensource.org/licenses/CPAL-1.0 contradicted section 10
of the OSD.  The approved draft is much better than the original,
however that section is still debatable.
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to